part_o_overheating

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions the tool returns pass/fail, is 'indicative', and escalates to TM59 on failure. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not discuss limitations in depth or input validation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes necessary caveats and follow-up guidance without wasted words. Every clause adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description clearly states the return value (pass/fail) and next step (TM59). It also defines the scope (UK AD O 2021, new residential, simplified method) and the two key checks (glazing area and ventilation area), which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (2/6 params), but the description clarifies that inputs relate to orientation, risk zone, cross vs single aspect, and free ventilation area. This adds meaning to most_glazed_facade, location_risk, cross_ventilation, and provided_free_area_m2, compensating for the sparse schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a UK Approved Document O 2021 simplified-method overheating check for new residential buildings, testing maximum glazing area and minimum free ventilation area. It is specific about the resource (AD O 2021) and action (overheating check), distinguishing it from siblings like thermal_load or heatpump_heatloss.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description specifies it is a simplified-method check and notes that if it fails, it points to CIBSE TM59 modelling as an alternative. This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus a more detailed modelling approach, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.